See it: Judge sentences Michelle Troconis to up to 20 years in prison

this is breaking news the remarks from what the court would consider victims of the [Music] crime almost always there is no single appropriate sentence otherwise the legislature would have designated a single appropriate sentence for every offense the charges here are conspiracy to commit murder which is a class B felony the legislature has set the sentencing range not less than one year nor more than 20 years which means the legislature contemplated in some instances sentences of no more than a year and in the same instance sentences of 20 years the legislature has given the Judiciary arrange conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence is a Class D Felony maximum five years tampering with physical evidence a Class D Felony maximum 5 years hindering prosecution is a class C felony not less than one year nor more than 10 years the court reli on what the law states and what the law allows to be proper considerations setting a sentence the court relies on the nature and circumstances of the offense the history and background and character of the offender after such consideration the court turned to what are called the traditional purposes of sentencing specific deterrence General deterrence punishment incapacitation Rehabilitation vocational or educational training and medical treatment those factors are not all given equal weight depending on the nature and circumstan an es of the offense and the history background and character of the offender the court does not take sides if the court knew possibly any one of you and had a bond with any one of you this court would not have tried that case it's not the Court's role to side or favor one side or another sentencing in many ways is a dispassionate exercise the court has no bond with any individual who spoke today or any other individual involved in the case the court cannot develop the passions that one side or the other has in State versus UI that's 199 Connecticut 121 at 126 of 1986 case the Connecticut Supreme Court Court held that the sentencing court may consider information that would be inadmissible at trial for the purpose of sentencing that same Court held that evidence of crimes for which the defendant was indicted but neither tried nor convicted may be considered well the word indicted and the process of indictment is not generally employed in Connecticut essentially that means where there has been a finding of probable cause but there has been no trial or no conviction additionally as a matter of due process the court may consider information that has a minimum indicaa of reliability now that minimum indicaa of reliability is not limited to unfavorable information Court can consider favorable favorable information that has a minimum indic of reliability the court certainly considers the victim impact statements every victim has the right to be heard before the court sentences are defendant that's part of the Connecticut victim's Bill of Rights which is read every day day in every Courthouse here in Connecticut the court would clarify what it perceives as perhaps a misconception of what the Court's role is the court does not deliberate with the jury the court does not deliberate on the evidence at all the court hears the evidence as the evidence comes into the to the record so when you hear that the court has a view of the evidence the court has no view of the evidence what the court has is a verdict and what could have been the reasonable and logical IAL inferences from the evidence that was adduced the court would not know what the jury discussed over those many hours what the court [Applause] can find is this it was clear during the jury charge jury instructions that the court instructed the jury that it may draw any reasonable and logical inferences from the facts found to have been [Music] proven based on the verdict the jury could have found the following reasonable and logical inferences Fus doulos was not home at for Jefferson Crossing the morning of May 24th when his wife was murdered but the defendant said he was on when the defendant admitted that he was not home the defendant who had been angry about dulos's talking to other women did not even ask him where he had been the defendant who was angry that he had visited his his wife did not ask him if he had visited her in fact the def as the court remembers the evidence didn't ask him anything the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant knew where he was and knew what he was doing the defendant said she saw Kent mnny and fotus dulos together in the office at for Jeffers Crossing on the morning of May 24th but the defendant did not see fotus doos and K mwin in the office at Fort Jefferson Crossing on the morning of May 24th there was a phone call made to dulos's phone which dulos left intentionally at Fort Jefferson Crossing the defendant answered it and the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference from all of the evidence that the defendant answered the phone to make it appear that doulos took the call himself on the morning of May 24th at Fort Jefferson Crossing when he was really on his way to or in new Canan when a police officer came to Fort Jefferson Crossing soon after the murder the defendant did not even go to the door even though her daughter who was not home may have been the subject of that conversation at the door now it has been clear that the defendant cares deeply for her daughter the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant did not go to the door because the defendant knew the reason the officer was there to find out more about The Disappearance of Jennifer du these are reasonable and logical inferences from the facts that were induced of the case during the trial the defendant traveled through a part of Harford with doulos as he dumps the bloody clothing of his wife the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that on the same day the defendant helped him pretend he was home in the morning but in the evening accompanied him to get rid of the evidence the defendant's DNA profile was found on one of the bags disposed of in Hartford jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant helped dispose of the evidence knowingly the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant helped fotus Duo's clean up traces of evidence at 80 Mountain Spring Road because the defendant and doulos were there together cleaning on the same day that the coma traveled to New Canon this is a flurry of irregular activity all on the same day the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the activities of that day were so irregular that the defendant could not possibly forget them in the span of two weeks even if the jurors individually had doubts about the defendant's guilt each one of them ultimately concluded that their doubts were not reasonable this is not a view of the Court's view of the evidence these are logical and reasonable inferences that the jury could have drawn cour is going to talk a little about the philosophy of sentencing sentencing is not the product of the Court's passions or prejudices the court doesn't have a bond with anyone involved in the case it's a dispassionate exercise the court did not investigate the case the court did not talk to the victims the court has no conversation with the defense defant or the defendant's family so there are some questions that are age old does the court the sentencing court adopt the public appr probium the indignation of the community when does retribution turn into Revenge what's the role of empathy should the court exercise sympathy for one side or another these are age- old questions Court relies on what the law says the court can't consider the nature and circumstances of the offense the history background and character of the offender every exercise is not an either or or exercise off when the good and the bad are true what is the purpose of the Court taking into consideration the victim impact stat is that only for the purpose of sympathy the court uses the victim impact statement to assign in its view the proper weight to any one of those traditional purposes of sentencing sentencing is not arbitrary or capricious it's not a matter of how the judge feels that day Court wants to also address what has become over the course of perhaps centuries perhaps not a cliche Michelle tron's life is in your hands Michelle tron's life is in her own hands what Michelle tronus decides to do today tomorrow and the next day is up to her from what the court has heard she has a great deal to offer court has no control over what her decisions will be her life is hers the following sentences are going to run concurrently on account charging conspiracy to commit murder 20 years execution suspended after 14 and a half years to serve 5 years probation tampering with physical evidence 5 years execution suspended after four years 5 years probation conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence 5 years execution suspended after four years 5 years probation the second count of tampering with physical evidence 5 years EX ution suspended after 4 years 5 years probation hindering prosecution 5 years execution suspended after four years probation after four years rather 5 years probation total effective sentence 20 years execution suspended after 14 and 1/2 years 5 years probation you will have an opportunity to challenge every finding that the jury made and every ruling that the court made Madam clerk you can give the defendant her notice of right to appeal judge I'm going to um orally state that Mr konus does intend to appeal I'm to ask the court to set a reasonable appeal Bond I will state that um does the uh the appeal bond that the court said was not something that Miss tronus or her family were able to uh meet I'm asking for something more in line with what she had been released on bond for for the last five years I would note that after your honor went on vacation the state asked for additional conditions which included um making her move to Connecticut and remain within the bounds of Connecticut my position your honor is the court obviously took that into consideration when it set that high bond that she was not a resident of Connecticut because that's what the state had then argued I'm asking that if there if she's going to be released at the court said a $2 million Bond but with a condition that she reside in Connecticut and not leave without permission and the court is going well Council court is going to decline to set a an appeal Bond not a constitutional right as the defendant signed the notice of right to appeal Stand journ All Rise [Music] this has been breaking news

Channel: CBS New York

Views: 47,741

Keywords: CBSN New York, Michelle Troconis, Jennifer Dulos, Connecticut, Local TV

Id: js9fiia2Slk

Length: 21min 9sec (1269 seconds)

Published: Fri May 31 2024